The polling business is far more of an art than a science, is easily manipulated, and is open to as many interpretations as there are people looking at the polls. I have never known a pollster who didn't walk in the door with a set of assumptions and biases in how to interpret the data. And everyone in the business knows that the way you phrase the questions, the way you sequence the questions, the way you draw the sample of who you are asking, and a bunch of other little tricks those of us in the political biz know can dramatically impact outcomes.
The other huge factor in the polling business is who the client is, and what the purpose of the poll is. If the poll is designed for internal analysis, you get one kind of results (and generally more honest data). If the poll is designed to be released to the public to prove a point (our candidate is winning, our issue is popular, our spin is best being the usual things clients use these kinds of polls for), you want to be really careful about accepting the analysis on its face, because that is where the little (and big) things that can be done to manipulate the findings really come into play.
I say this by way of introduction to my central discussion: the internal debate within the Democratic party for what the central narrative of our party ought to be. Over the short term, that fight centers on how to save us from getting crushed in the 2010 elections, but it is of course a very long term fight that has been going on in our party since the New Deal coalition came unraveled in the late 1960s.
As I said, everyone comes to this debate with certain biases, and I will admit mine upfront. Just in case you haven't read my stuff much, I am -- by history, sentiment, ideology, and instinct -- naturally drawn to progressive populism: fighting for the "little guy", standing up to wealthy corporate interests. My political role models in history are people like FDR, Truman, and Bobby Kennedy, people who figured out how to appeal to a multi-racial coalition and the idealism of the young while still winning over working class white folks. In the modern era, my favorite political leaders are people like Paul Wellstone, Sherrod Brown, Dave Obey, Tom Perriello, and Brian Schweitzer, candidates who have won in purple or even red states/districts not by becoming more like Republicans but by raising the populist progressive flag unapologetically.
Now, having admitted my biases, I will also say that progressive populism (like every other messaging frame) has some limits as a political strategy. There are some districts it doesn't work in. There have been elections where it hasn't been as salient, or moments where where it is overwhelmed by a certain mood in the electorate or a particular candidate's magic touch (Reagan's Morning in America theme in 1984, combined with Reagan's charm and a surging economy, was a classic example, although Mondale's kind of populism wasn't exactly stirring). Certain candidates can't pull populism off credibly, and probably shouldn't try (John Kerry comes to mind).
I also firmly believe that an angry populism all by itself isn't convincing to a majority of voters, that you have to combine the justifiable anger at the abuses of corporate power with compelling positive policy ideas on how you will deliver jobs and other benefits to voters. I don't think a purely anti-business populism usually works, for example: I think candidates need to show how they support small business and manufacturers and companies that are really contributing jobs and useful products to our country and communities. Finally, I would say this: I would never recommend a purely pro-government kind of populism to candidates. Voters, for very good reasons, are deeply cynical that government is really on their side, and will really deliver for them. Progressives have to make clear that part of our mission is to clean up the corporate corruption of government, and that we understand that government in recent years (outside of old stand-bys like Social Security and Medicare and Head Start and the minimum wage) has not always done a good job in making most people's lives better. We also have to be clear that we do want to cut wasteful government spending, and that most of that wastefulness comes from corporate subsidies and sweetheart deals: contracting practices that overwhelmingly favor the contractors rather than the taxpayers, agribusiness subsidies that have no merit, sweetheart deals in health care reform that don't allow for negotiations with drug manufacturers or public sector competition with insurance companies, tax loopholes that have no rational basis for existing besides a really good lobbying operation.
On the other side of the populist argument are Democrats who argue that it is bad political strategy to be too aggressive in taking on corporate America. Since we're all admitting our biases here, I would urge the pollsters and groups who generally make this argument to admit their own: almost all of them get most of their client or contributor list from the ranks of corporate America. The leading pollster who has been making this argument for the last couple of decades is Mark Penn, who heads a firm that does far, far more work in corporate PR and lobbying than it does for candidates. The leading politicians making this argument have been the Blue Dog and New Democrat caucuses, whose members receive far more corporate money than the rest of the Democratic party. And the leading groups making these arguments are the DLC and Third Way, both of which have as a (probably the, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt) leading source of contributions big corporations and their executives.
The latest example is a poll recently released by Third Way. Before I get to criticizing it, let me stop for a minute and say that I thought it had some useful insights for Democrats. The idea of tying Republican policies in congress closer to Bush, for example, is certainly a solid idea (although I fear that it is harder said than done.) The idea that Democrats should speak to the future and be aspirational in their language is something that makes sense to me. I even like the fiscal discipline thing, though I would redirect it to where the real waste in the budget is (corporate sweetheart deals, see above).
Having said that, though, it was really clear that this poll's questions, and the interpretation in the memo they wrote about the poll, were designed to try and talk Democrats out of using populist rhetoric. Let me take you through a couple of examples:
In the first major section of the memo, the focus is on the importance of tying the Republicans to Bush. After a series of questions making their point on that idea, their takeaway box for section 1 is the following:
"The central argument is one of forward vs. backward. Conservative views must not be defined as "the ideology of no," "of Wall Street,", or "of special interests,", they must be defined as going back to "the ideology of Bush." Their ideas must not be "bad ideas" or "corporatist ideas,", they must be "going back to Bush economic ideas."
The odd thing about this takeaway is that they didn't ever test defining conservative views as being "of Wall Street", "of special interests", or even the awkward "corporatist ideas" phrase. When they probed on people's feelings on Wall St, like every other poll in the last two years, they discovered an intense anger, but they never even tested populist framing in their D. vs R. questions (maybe because they were afraid of how it would turn out).
The second section of the memo's entire point is to convince Democrats of how pro-business and private sector voters are. And you know what: I agree with them. Americans are very pro-business: pro-small business, pro-entrepreneur, pro-manufacturing business, pre-technology sector. But when this poll tested messages about Wall St, there was the opposite of enthusiasm. And they didn't even bother to test how people felt about big oil companies, big health insurance companies, or big pharmaceutical companies, but I know from other polls those companies are not exactly loved.
What they did do was throw up questions designed to get answers they were looking for. They asked about "cutting taxes for business" vs "making new government investments", and a lot more folks (54-32) went with the former. Here's the deal though: any of us who look at polls for a living know how a question phrased like that will turn out. If you talk about government in general, people don't trust it: as far as they can tell, a government investment might mean bailing out the banks again. But if you ask about specific things- making sure teachers don't get laid off, repairing roads and bridges, etc- people like government better.
Here's another question:
Only 37% say "large companies have too much power, hurt the middle class, and government needs to keep them in check," versus 55% who say "American companies are the backbone of the US economy and we need to help them grow, whether they are large or small." (Independents 33-57%)
Saying American companies are the backbone of the American economy and we need to help them grow sounds great even to an old lefty like me -- of course people will pick that over an ill-defined "government keeping them in check". But these are not either-or things, and there was no particular reason to make people choose between them unless the authors of the poll were trying to skew the numbers. What would have been more illuminating would have to ask the former question on its own as a simple yes or no. I'm guessing people would have liked it better then.
Look, I think every poll has some useful info, and this poll is a good reminder that in these times when most voters feel like both parties and government in general has failed them, you want to be careful about talking too fondly of the government. Americans feel good about much of American business, and Democrats should never stop emphasizing how much they want to help small business, innovative entrepreneurs, and the manufacturing sector -- because at least most of us do. But we have to combine that understanding with the knowledge that the public is sick and tired of wealthy corporate interests controlling our government, and our policies benefiting Wall St, the insurers, and Big Oil before they ever benefit the rest of us. To avoid even asking questions with the populist critique, to leave that frame out of the discussion when you are doing strategy for Democrats, is malpractice pure and simple.
I am happy to be open about my bias in this. I just wish the folks at Third Way and the other groups and candidates like them would fess up to their own pro-corporate bias.
And I think we are going to see more and more horror stories about government corruption. Not just drilling regulators in bed with BP, not just NSA and Pentagon people involved in child porn, but stuff at the local level too, like Bell California's city council paying their city manager $800K.
We shoved a lot of money out to the governments at all levels with the stimulus - and we shoved it too fast to assure there were adequate controls. Fox (and others) are going to find the waste in that and pound the dems with it - they already are - and the administration will be in a defensive and reactive mode for most of the campaign.
Perhaps getting the money out there that fast was necessary - we'll never really know - but you better believe that over the next few months we'll be hit with case after case of government abuse and stupidity. Ethics cases like Rangel's aren't going to help either.
Government itself will be held in contempt as often as Fox News can possibly do so, and it will erode away support for the dems.
Just my guess as to the future, but remember, you read it here first....
"Really? You think this administration has learned it's lesson about right wing propaganda? I'll bet Axelrod and Emmanuel have a stack of right wing polls ready to present to the Pres..."
Second, the reason bashing the wealthy isn't working for dems is that most of the dem politicians are part of that wealthy elite. Can't you see how hypocritical it is for the party of Kennedy, Rockefeller, Pelosi, etc. full of rich career politicians with guaranteed health care and pensions to be pretending to be the party of the common man? It's like having the inmates of Attica running on a law and order platform. The repubs aren't any different but seem a lot more honest because they don't try to hide who they are. Dems would be much better off if they actually worked at understanding who the middle class is and what our lives are like rather than just trying to beat on the people who aren't middle class.
I heartily agree that the people analyzing polls are biased beyond usefulness in some cases, especially because they do not put their bias out there. I ALSO think that any politician who can't look at what was being asked and say "This is crap. Get out of here, you cooked the books" isn't worthy of the taxpayers who voted for him.
But the word public is more egalitarian, more "everyman." Hey, after all aren't we all the public?
Also, strategies that appeal to a sense of fair play and common sense and decency always resonate with Americans. Over the past almost 3 years the public has sacrificed much: lost jobs, underemploy ment, reduced wages, lost benefits and retirements. The government has also contributed by pumping trillions into American business through tax cuts, loans and bail outs.
Today, American business profits are rising and according to other articles here they are sitting on 1.2 trillion in cash.
Here's the frame: It's time for American business to step up and recognize all that has been given and sacrificed by the public through their taxes and diminished way of life. to insure American business health and survival. Now it is time for businesses, profitable and solvent, to step up and play ball with the American citizen and start hiring them back.
What's fair is fair, after all.
They get the SAME deductions, exemptions, etc as anyone else. If it zeros out their taxes, then aren't they doing the same thing as many corporations do? Is it their fault 2 presidents have cut their taxes 3 times in 10 years? Why demonize someone for something that is no fault of their own? THAT is class warfare.
There are only two ways to make that 50% pay more:
Give them raises
Raise their taxes
.
Which do you prefer?
Actually, you sound like someone who should celebrate the fact that taxes are so low that some people don't pay them.
And about that huge percentage of people who works for government: you are referring to the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies, right?
Democrats have to separate the daily din of extremist propagandizing from those message that average Americans are listening for - "Is It Working Or Not?" Democrats should take a page from Reagan's 1984 playbook and ask, "Is America doing better today compared to 18 months ago when we launched our agenda?" 18 months ago, the GDP was contracting at 5%+, today it's expanding at 3%+. 18 months ago, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month, now we're adding 100,000 jobs a month. 18 months ago, the auto industry was on the verge of collapse, today 2 of the Big 3 are in the black. 18 months ago, Americans had lost trillions of dollars from their 401Ks and the Dow was at 6500; today Americans have recovered trillions and the Dow is at 10,000. 18 months ago, anyone wanting to start a small business had a central, massive problem to solve, which was health insurance; today, there's light at the end of that tunnel. 18 months ago, US exports were dropping like a rock, now they're expanding at 20% per year or so. 18 months ago, retailers and banks were dropping like flies, today they're doing much better.
"Is America better off today than 18 months ago?" Repeat over and over.
The point is, the Democratic response to the economy is broadly effective - again, look at GDP, look at the Dow, look at the auto industry, look at exports, look at the mechanism to remove the health care millstone from around small business' head.
People are so manipulated by news media that is fully invested in dark forcasts that it's time to go out there and preach the good news all day, every day. No, 30 years of neglect haven't been fully reversed in 18 months, but we've come a long way.
You could be the anti-Rove.
The media however, does not seem to mind repeating these mis-information. Time and time again, you hear news media types saying, the Presidents poll numbers are down, then you get the pundits arguing with each other, as to why. What they fail to tell us is WHO was polled? What questions were asked?How namy people took part. For anyone who has taken statistics, in college, knows that a population can be as small as 1 or 100,000. Most of these polls have a population of 500, and error rate of -5. Americans are stuck in stupidity, we let others think for us. So they use polls, to tell, us how to vote, who to like, where to eat, what to wear,We are like sheep, we like to be led. The republicans are doing a hell of ajob leading us.
"I also firmly believe that an angry populism all by itself isn't convincing to a majority of voters." -- I wouldn't be so sure about that, not when the damage to this country and the middle class by our transnational corporate overlords is so painfully widespread and obvious.
Mike. FDR didn't get mucked up by the trees in the forest. FDR took the overview and said it how it is. If you are for the rich and corporate greed then you are the enemy. Mike. Liberal. Seriously. Nice assessment. But really, democrats need to pound what we all know. Right from wrong.
Because the Right ain't right.
The 60's were a turbulent time what with the Civil Rights movement, a TV War, and the assassinations of several high profile progressive people, namely Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King. It would seem that the Powers that Be learned not to let people that were really progressive get anywhere near seats of power.
Also maybe there is a not so veiled threat to those that would move in a progressive tact that they stopped that movement 40 years ago, they can do it again.